Re: [TizzyLishNinja] Mensa Monday: Stranger in the Night
Well, one interpretation of the commander's statement of "four false statements, and four true ones" suggests that none of the four passengers committed the murder. This assumes that all four statements of "I'm innocent" are true.
That leaves five suspects: Art (suicide), the conductor, the commander, the forensic doctor, and the waiter.
Honestly, I'm tempted to say the waiter did it. He's the only one who'd have had an easy means to poison Art with strychnine. However, since Art was apparently poisoned on the train (or before the train), I'll assume the waiter didn't do it.
I see no reason to assume the conductor did it...his tapping Art on the shoulder doesn't raise suspicion.
I'll assume this wasn't a suicide...after all, there are a lot of other easier and simpler ways to kill oneself. So that leaves the commander and the doctor. Unfortunately, I can't see a logical reason for either of them to be the murderer...the doctor wouldn't have any more access to strychnine than any other person (strychnine is not used in medicine; rather it's used as a pesticide). If the doctor had done it, he'd have been smart enough to use some other agent.
That leaves just the commander. It's tempting to say the commander did it, since he's the one at the end of the story who "knows" who the guilty party is. If he were the murderer, then obviously he'd know it. However, there's no fun in this explanation. Also, if the commander had done it, he wouldn't have asked "his heart?", since strychnine kills through asphyxiation. Of course, the commander could have been feigning innocence, but I don't like that explanation.
So let's look at this from a different angle. Let's assume the commander is an "all knowing, all seeing" character, but not guilty. That implies his statement about "four false statements and four true" is accurate, and we can use it to determine who the murderer was.
We know there was only one murderer, so three of the "I'm innocent" statements are true. That means there's only one more true statement. If the blonde were the murderer, it would satisfy all the requirements of the commander's statement. Furthermore, I'm 99% sure there's no other explanation that would result in 4 true statements and four false. See the breakdown below:
The man in the dark suit: I'm innocent (true), the blonde woman was talking to Farnanski (true).
The blonde woman: I'm innocent (false), I did not speak to Farnanski (false).
The man in the light suit: I'm innocent (true), the brunette woman killed him (false).
The brunette woman: I'm innocent (true), one of the men killed him (false).
So my answer is: the blonde did it. Personally, I'd have preferred if the brunette were the murderer. In my experience brunettes are much more treacherous and scheming. They're also much more fun. While blondes just don't seem up for the kind of planning and mental legwork required for a murder by strychnine. But the evidence in this tale suggests that the blonde is the murderer.
Of course, there are some major problems with this tale. First off, strychnine is an INCREDIBLY bitter poison, and it's unlikely Art wouldn't have realized he'd taken something harmful. Although, perhaps the author meant to suggest that the strychnine had been mixed with some other bitter food (such as coffee), which once again suggests the waiter was guilty. Unfortunately, we have no reason to assume the waiter was on the train.
Lastly, strychnine kills by asphyxiation as a result of severe muscle spasms. There's no way a person killed with strychnine could have appeared to have simply "dozed off". Everyone in that train would have known someone was dying.
